Obama Dodges Question on Israeli Nuclear Capability

The question of the night at President Obama's first televised press conference focused not on economics but foreign policy. Helen Thomas asked the president if he knew of any countries in the Middle East that have nuclear weapons. The President said that he didn't want to "speculate" about such an issue, but that preventing a regional nuclear arms race, as well as reducing nuclear arsenals internationally, was an important goal.

There is, of course, only one Middle Eastern nation which has a nuclear arsenal: Israel. Thomas' question was designed to test whether Obama would admit that well-known secret. Many past American presidents have not.

The president refused to answer. Which begs a follow-up question: why is it considered impermissible for American politicians to even admit that Israel is a nuclear power? For what reason is such an admission considered to be a means of undermining US-Israeli relations, or weakening Israeli security? Bold but highly debatable (and contentious) statements concerning prominent Middle Eastern actors fall from the lips of American leaders constantly. For example, tonight President Obama reiterated the charge that Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations, a broad-brush description, considering that Hamas's political wing has won at least one democratic election (in Gaza), and both groups have humanitarian as well as paramilitary wings.

Responsible public policy cannot be formed without an honest and public assessment of on-the-ground realities, something Americans learned the hard way under the Bush administration. Recognizing the immense challenge presented by the Israeli-Palestinian issue, those who seek a resolution of the conflict must demand that President Obama discuss the reality of that situation in a more honest way. This includes criticizing both sides for abuses, not just the Palestinian side (Obama still has yet to critique the Israeli assault on Gaza). It also means being willing to bring up issues that past administrations have not. Such equality is especially necessary if public opinion of the United States in the Arab world is to be improved.

Tonight, President Obama demonstrated avoidance, not leadership, regarding this pivotal issue. He is far to worldly not to have done so intentionally, which, while frustrating, also provides concerned citizens with a concrete goal: the task of driving him to greater candor -- and with it, better policy -- in the future.

A few quick notes regarding Israeli nuclear capacity:

From the Federation of American Scientists (link):

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided.

From the Wisconsin Project (link):

Today, Israel is the world's sixth most powerful nuclear state, with a stockpile of more than 100 nuclear weapons and with the components and ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs. Israel's nuclear program began and still operates under tight secrecy, but in the 1980s a series of revelations showed the crucial role played by foreign suppliers.

From former US President Jimmy Carter (link):

Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has at least 150 atomic weapons in its arsenal. The Israelis have never confirmed they have nuclear weapons, but this has been widely assumed since a scientist leaked details in the 1980s.

Comments

[Boringat]

Why all the fuss about Iran's nuclear efforts....they could have half a dozen Fed-Ex from our loyal allies in Pakistan before the cheque cleared the bank.

[Fein]

Obama knew that discussion of Israel's nuclear weapons would lead to the dissilusion of the whole propaganda facade of 'Israel as the victimiized' nation deserving of billions of our tax dollars.

As well as the cost in world political credibility that unilateral support of Israel's war crimes in the UN detracts from our nation.

[aemathisphd]

Yeah, um, Israel's possession of nuke's is about the worst-kept secret in the world. Not only did one general get caught on a live mike during, I think, the Yom Kippur War saying that Israel wouldn't be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East (but also not the second), but President Shimon Peres has basically said it openly: We got nuclear weapons, not for a Hiroshima, but for an Oslo. Granted, Oslo was a failure and Iranian nukes will bring much-needed parity to the region, but dodging the question is just ridiculous.

[calbears]

Good for Helen Thomas. I think it's amusing to see how terrorized by Israel's lobby are politicians in the U.S. Suddenly grown men appear like they're thirteen, when asked anything about Israel. I'm longing for the days when one of them has the cajones to just say out loud what everyone already knows "Israel has nuclear weapons." It would be fun to watch Tel Aviv sputter over it, and even more fun to listen to Abe Foxman accuse Obama of anti-Semitism.

[SPQR1775]

Well I support him for not answering. The question put Israel "ON NOTICE" that Americans will not continue to sit idly by while they talk about other nations, while they are sleeping with the devil. The Israelis have not moral authority and their integrity and credibility is shot!

[southwindow]

the question was from a journalist
who has asked the same question before to other presidents
obama but israel on notice that he was going to bow to their every whim like all the other presidents.

[Doremus]

Thank God for Helen Thomas!

Who expected different from Obama? I didn't.

For all his rhetoric about change and restoring American credibility in the world, in reality he is as bigoted when it comes to the Middle East as Bush or any Republican.

His silence during the Israeli slaughter in Gaza was unforgivable.

[swan1]

The guy that shot the people in church in Knoxville, said he was "inspired" by Sean Hannity .

[oregonideas]

Of course we all know Israel has nuclear weapons....and, like it or not, Israel's continued survival is, in no small part, dependent on that capability and her "neighbors" realizing that Israel would use those weapons. A US President's open admission of such status, however, would change the tone of the middle east conversation. Sure, that seems stupid, but let's face it, a lot of diplomacy, if seen logically, looks stupid. I hate to be pessimistic, but a realistic goal in the middle east might be just to avoid full-scale wars and achieve some sort of "semi-peaceful" co-existance. Israel's nuclear capacity is key to maintaining any semblance of peace in the area, without it there would be a) no Israel or b) the need for direct and prolonged American military involvement to protect Israel.

[chaos4700]

"Israel's nuclear capacity is key to maintaining any semblance of peace in the area, without it there would be a) no Israel or b) the need for direct and prolonged American military involvement to protect Israel."

As to Point A... what preserved Israel's existence /before/ having nukes? Because it seems to me like they use it as a trump card -- "Do as we say, or eat fallout!"

As to Point B, you say that as if the American military isn't intricately involved -- in "selling" or outright gifting equipment and supplies, in providing training, in cooperating on expensive military tech research (often of questionable morality). Israel having nukes actually compels us to nail our military to their defense, if only to make sure those things don't fall into the wrong hands. Like, say the Russian mafia.

[Plus15]

Since it's a "well known secret" that Israel has nuclear capability what are you trying to accomplish by the President confirming "the well known secret"? With all due respect Helen Thomas was trying to be cute.

[mef55]

Perhaps it would improve our relations with Arab countries if someone would admit that Israel is not a defenseless underdog.

[southwindow]

she was getting at the crux of the matter.
that we will defend obvious lies to the american people about one of our allies. it was an offensive display of cowardice. we can never be an honest peace broker with this sort of attitude

[Arawak]

His silence on Gaza was a disappointment, tragedy really. I saw it coming. He lies by omission.

[papapj]

It's more than that, it's tantamount to a betrayal.

He shows a lack of humanity and an indifference to my intelligence by paying dutiful allegiance to the same old failed message of, er, filtered perspectives in the face of abject suffering, pain and internationally sanctioned injustice....

He must know this, he sees what we see and more, for sure...

Real change takes b*lls. He wussed out.

"He lies by omission", ergo he fails the mission.

[ErikW65]

Oh what a bunch of sanctimonious crap. OK, say Obama comes out and outs Israel's nukes, and trashes them for what they did in Gaza. At his first press conference. Where does that leave him? The mission isn't to appease the radical left by "telling the truth" for no pragmatic political reason, it's to bring the region down off it's rolling boil.

[RikkiTikkiTumbo]

I realize India, who has nukes, isn't considered part of the Middle East, but Pakistan is, and they have nukes. Why doesn't anybody seem concerned about them?

[Hedonist]

Excellent question. Probably because they can't blame Israel for the Pakistan bomb and it's potential danger.

[Belgian Beer]

Pakistian is not part of the Middle East. It is part of South Asia. Get your geography right.

[mmmd]

You can't shift a whole nation to fit your whims! Pakistan is in the Middle East? LOL. And there's even a reply saying: Good question! Bwahaha.

[Hedonist]

It is an excellent question as to why a nuclear armed Muslim country (not Middle Eastern) such as Pakistan receives very little attention regarding it's arsenal.

[Taxi]

The reason that Iran is overtly/covertly interested in acquiring nukes is because Israel already has them.

The nuclear arms race in the middle east has already been going on since the sixties when the French helped the Israelis get kitted up. You sure can make a lot of nukes in some 40 years - perhaps even a greater number than the pitiful 400 that is often referenced. We know this because we know the word 'enough military' is not part of Israeli language.

Israel has a nuke pointed at every major Iranian city and the Iranians threaten with 'words' the demise of Israel. Israel doesn't have to use words, it already has the warheads pointed at Iran with fanatic precision.

No chance for an enduring peace in the middle east without it becoming a nuclear-free zone.

That means Israel giving it up before the whole world.

You see Palestine is not the only colossal problem Israel has.

For such a young country, they sure have dug themselves some nasty holes.

[Hedonist]

How about the U.S. give up their weapons first since the threat they face is infinitely smaller than the one Israel faces.

[Taxi]

Okay. Either we all ban nukes, or we all have them.

Flip a coin anyone?

[Sarah55]

My first reaction to Helen Thomas' question was also that it was a reference to Israel's nuclear capability. But, I was surprised by Obama's strong reaction to her question--did you see how flushed his face became?

His reaction caused me to think about the question that Caren Bohan of Reuters asked:

"What is your strategy for engaging Iran, and when will you start to implement it? . . . And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?"

To which, Obama responded, "I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that . . . their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region ... ." "And it's important that even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about . . . the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing."

So, when Thomas asked whether Obama knew "of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons", it reminded me that the NIE released 12/07 determined that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in Fall 2003 and does not currently have a nuclear weapons program. [National Intelligence Estimate, www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf ]

Perhaps Obama's facial flush was not anger, just embarrassment for getting caught perpetuating a known falsehood.

[Hedonist]

Of course, the NIE never makes mistakes. You've apparently forgotten Iraq already?

[Sarah55]

Please provide a reference for your comments.

[chaos4700]

So, basically what you're trying to say, is that if the NIE says a country has nukes, they don't, and if the NIE says the don't have nukes... they do?

Incidentally, I'm not sure if there was anything in the NIE formally about Iraq's nuclear capacity. Bush inserted that information, cherry picked from raw intel and over the objections of CIA analysts, into his speeches and State of the Union address. Perhaps you have a link to the section of an NIE from the early 2000's that backs up what you claim?

[Prattvictory2]

The litmus of the honesty of an American President is Israel.

[Taxi]

You got that right!

[DKLabRat]

Israel build her nuclear weapons program in secret, stealing data from its allies and has ever since refused to admit it even has the bomb.

Exactly the same allegations levelled at Iran by past US Presidents. But of course THEY are an axis of evil and Israel is just defending herself.

It's time we stopped giving Israel a free pass and quit the rampant hypocrisy on this and other issues in the Middle East.